State Police Commander Col. Mike Edmonson has been rumored to be priming himself for a run at public office and his latest “Who, me?” pronouncements would seem to indicate that he’s finally ready for the big jump.

Meanwhile, the Louisiana Retired Troopers Association is not happy and appears ready to leap into the controversy surrounding a special amendment giving Edmonson and one other state trooper hefty retirement benefit increases.

Edmonson says he is not getting special treatment, that he did not seek nor was he aware of the $30,000 a year retirement bump he got from an amendment sneaked into an otherwise nondescript bill on the final day of the session.

So, here’s the deal: everyone in the room who believes Edmonson please line up against the opposite wall. Now. Go ahead. Don’t be shy. We’re waiting. C’mon, people…

All right, let’s try a different tactic: everyone who does not believe his tooth fairy story, please leave the roo….Hey! Whoa! Not so fast! Someone’s gonna get hurt!

Edmonson also says that he and a Houma-based state trooper are the last holdovers from a defunct retirement plan and that the amendment allows them to retire in the current State Police Retirement System.

Are we to believe, then, you would have had no pension whatsoever had this amendment not been slipped in? Seriously?

Forgive our skepticism, Colonel, but that seems something of a stretch. First you deny knowledge of the amendment and then you go to great lengths to defend it.

Such self-serving denials/non-answers (bureaucratic two-steps) round out the qualifications for political office for Edmonson who, before moving upstairs to shadow Gov. Bobby Jindal for all those photo-ops, spent much of his career on the sidelines of LSU football games protecting the Tiger head coaches from…what, Hostile fans? Groupies? Reporters?

So now, as the State Police Retirement System staff prepares to take up this issue today at 1:30 p.m., the Retired Louisiana State Police Communication Network is abuzz about the sneaky way in which the amendment was tacked on by the Legislative Conference Committee on the last day of the session.

Word is there are retired state troopers scattered across the state who are not at all happy with the news that Edmonson, in addition to 100 percent retirement (his salary is $134,000 per year), based on more than 30 years of service, he also now becomes eligible for longevity benefits and the three Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) years, boosting his retirement income another $30,000 per year over and above the amount at which he qualified at the rank of captain when he entered DROP.

And if anyone was of a mind to file a lawsuit to halt the special treatment of Edmonson, any retired state trooper would have sufficient legal standing to do so.

The actuarial notes prepared by the Actuarial Services Department of the Legislative Auditor’s office, calculate a fiscal impact on the retirement system of $300,000 but that’s only over a five-year stretch because that’s as far out as the notes may project. That calculates to $30,000 per year for each of the two troopers.

We can only speculate, of course, but it seems reasonable to assume the two will live more than five years beyond their retirement, which of course, will only add to the cost.

(The actuarial notes, by the way, were prepared on June 5, three days after the legislature adjourned, which gives us some idea of the surprise element involved with this amendment.)

But back to those disgruntled retired state troopers: What might it cost the state if a retired trooper—or several retirees—got their backs up sufficiently to file suit?

While it might be a windfall to Jimmy Faircloth, it also might cost the state a lot more to defend the action than the $300,000, especially if the state should lose as it very well could. Such a lawsuit, after all, would be about fair and equal treatment.

One observer in a position to know said fiscal notes are required for bills affecting a pension plan’s unfunded accrued liability (UAL). “I don’t imagine one was prepared for this bill, but somebody knows what it will cost and the law requires any acts with the effect of increasing the UAL to have to be funded so that they don’t (affect the UAL).”

State Sen. Jean Paul Morrell (D-New Orleans), who submitted the bill, said it was intended to address routine changes in the law governing police officers under investigation and had nothing to do with retirement benefits. He said he was unaware of the impact of the amendment, a claim that most of the legislators who voted for the bill can probably make with a high degree of honesty considering the last minute crush of business in the session final days.

“Assuming Morrell is not lying,” our observer said, “I read into this…that Edmonson himself got him (Morrell) to do this amendment (after) having been tipped to its enrichment potential for him.”

Thus far not mentioned in all of this, but something that should certainly be considered:

How can Edmonson, after this furtive move and his lame denials, realistically expect the men and women under his command to continue to respect him as a leader?

I would love to have had the opportunity to cancel my irrevocable decision to participate in DROP! For me, DROP participation resulted in a substantial decrease in my retirement income compared to what I would be receiving had i not participated. But back in the beginning, “they” told everyone that DROP would be beneficial. Now they are very careful not to say that! I may be forced to seek a part time job to supplement my retirement income!

Great job, Tom. I plan to attend the meeting at 1:30 and videotape it. I should have the video segment for this item uploaded to Youtube within an hour of the meeting’s conclusion. I called the office, and they said to arrive early as they are expecting a large crowd. Public comment on this item should be interesting, and I hope to have all of it on videotape by late this afternoon. Also, I worked with Irwin Felps at Ambank 25 years ago. He is a man of immense integrity, and I commend him for the fast reaction and putting this out for Board deliberation. He’s not one to try and conceal anything, and he has a very high level of respect from everyone I know in the business community.

I agree with everything being said. I do not know Irwin Felps but I do know the Assistant Director, Kimberly Gann. I’ve never known anyone in my life with more integrity, and more heart. She loves and cares for each and every retiree, and takes her responsibility to them seriously. I have not had the opportunity to speak with her about this, but, I would imagine (knowing her work ethic and integrity) that she is highly upset. This stinks, no matter how you spin it!!

It’s sad that the legislators are willing to reduce retirement benefits for the rank and file state employee (as they tried to do last year), but are willing to crack open the piggy bank for the well connected.

Great Investigative Reporting, Tom. I find it interesting that both those affected by the change and those making the change seem unaware who asked for the change or what it was supposed to do. To sort the truth from fiction one needs look no further than the request for Fiscal Impact that was made to Hall Actuarial Associates on 5/28/2014. This request predates the vote on amendments on 6/1/2014 that sent the bill to Conference Committee. To me that means it was already planned to attach this additional proposal all along to some instrument. It’s been my experience this usually happens when the Governor’s Office or Division of Administration wants something done and they go looking for someone to do it for immediate or future consideration. I just think no one thought it would be noticed. It certainly isn’t the way the public thinks the Legislature works. The public thinks laws are debated… but this strategy by-passes debate and is used too often. Being a Retired State Trooper, I find this type of action lacks integrity and erodes the public confidence in the troopers. I have some concerns regarding the Constitutionality of the action but those much smarter than I will have to ascertain if the Constitution was circumvented. It appears the Governor is only interested in reigning in State Employee benefits cost if the employee isn’t one of his political appointees. Hey Governor Jindal…”A little less talk and a lot more action.”

On the first day I entered law enforcement in 1979, I was cautioned to be wary of “dirty cops.” Does anyone wish to hazard a guess at how many more times I’ve heard that same warning in the intervening 37 years?

Well, it looks like our new governor has reappointed a dirty cop to continue to lead…no, “lead” is a completely inappropriate word! He reappointed a dirty cop to “head up” what should be the most prestigious law enforcement agency in Louisiana…an organization above reproach. Yes, Governor Duty, Honor, and Country didn’t take long to climb aboard the Louisiana Politics as Usual political platform. I don’t know what’s more humiliating-the fact that I voted for him, or the fact that while he was at West Point he served as number two man on the committee that ensured that the Academy’s Honor Code was upheld.

Email Subscription

Like what you read here? Send a free subscription to a friend or subscribe for yourself. Type in his/her email address in the square below and then click on “Sign me up!”

Join 3,406 other followers

Donate!

LouisianaVoice does not accept advertising because we insist on an independent voice. Likewise, we do not charge a subscription fee for our blog.
That is not to say we do not have expenses—lots of them. Moreover, we would love to add a reporter to provide even better coverage of the underbelly of Louisiana politics.
Your contribution would help us immensely in meeting our growing expenses. Simply click on the “Donate” button here and contribute whatever you feel appropriate.
Thank you.
Tom Aswell, Publisher

Got a tip?

Got a news lead for LouisianaVoice to investigate? Have a suggestion for a story? Your identity will never be revealed. Just send an email to louisianavoice@cox.net